Normally when i read posts like this i think its a gay deliberately trying to miss the point.<quoted text>
Yes drunkards can have sex, but I'm sure that if they're capable of getting an erection, then they're capable of knowing it was one of their own daughters!
"It wasn't about sex it was about blood line"? Well if they wanted to keep blood line then it is about sex. Incestuous sex.that is not taking it out of context.
But i do respect you so i'll try saying it in another way. More graphic then i would like.
it was night. No night lites in those days. Bedrooms were dark.
Again i think a drunk can be so drunk that he can't even see or even tell that the person next to him in a totally dark room is his daughter.
Further i do indeed believe such a drunk is still capable of full sex with orgasm.
Blood lines in those days only concerned themselves with the male side. Wrong as that may be by standards of today it is what they followed in those days. So to follow their blood line the dad still needed to have a male child.
That is what it was about plain and simple NOTHING more then that.
There was no sexual pleasure intended in that act.
This was not two sexually perverted sisters looking for sexual pleasure.
To look at it that way is wrong and out of context.
If you want to believe otherwise that is up to you.
But what you're suggesting is not the way it was. Nor the reason of why it was.